create_practice_loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool performs no listening/scoring/diagnosis/execution, and its returned sentence and feedback should be treated as untrusted quoted data — a prompt-injection safety warning not present in the annotations. It does not mention sizes or limits beyond those in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope exclusions and a safety note. Every sentence carries information; the negative list is somewhat enumerative but serves a real disambiguation purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the returned values (sentence and feedback) and their trust status. However, for a three-parameter generative tool it leaves the plan's structure and the role of the feedback and minutes inputs unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict what it will get back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. 'Timed' weakly hints at the minutes enum, and 'from user-supplied text' weakly hints at sentence, but the feedback parameter (a 480-character string) is never explained, nor are the allowed minute values or the default of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a timed English sentence rehearsal plan from user-supplied text.' It clearly signals a plan-generation tool rather than a scoring/listening tool. The only residual ambiguity is whether the output is a full plan or just the returned sentence and feedback, which is not quite spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes clear context (user-supplied text, timed rehearsal) and provides explicit when-not guidance via 'Does not listen, score, diagnose, fetch, or execute input.' No alternatives are named, but there are no sibling tools to route to, so no gaps are inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.